Upvote:1
There are argumentations that support the sense that this prohibition is to be seen in the context of Canaanite practice, probably first discussed by John E. Hartley.
An exhaustive discussion supporting this theses is published by Luis Quinones-Roman.
This interpretation is embedded into a higher sense (citation from above)
It is not foreseeable to believe that YHWH abominates individuals that are h*m*sexuals. I take the stand that h*m*sexuality is not an abomination because both heterosexuals and h*m*sexuals were created equal before God. Both deserve the natural and divine right to love whoever they want.
The higher sense is actually the motivation for reviewing the interdiction of h*m*sexuality in modern Jewish and Christian communities; it is not based on the re-interpretation of the law.
It is possible that the interdiction refers somehow to contrast to pagan practice of worship. The interpretation that the interdiction only applied to pagan practice of worship is however rather constructed and not supported by the majority of Christian and Jewish theologists.
Upvote:1
This argument that these prohibitions are only contextualized to temple worship and is otherwise permitted, is shown to be absurd to the highest degree when the same argument is applied to the surrounding verses. For example, let's see what happens when we apply the logic to just the next verse in the immediate context:
Leviticus 18:23 And you shall not lie with any animal and so make yourself unclean with it, neither shall any woman give herself to an animal to lie with it: it is perversion.
Really? You're permitted to lie with any animal or give yourself to an animal as long as it's not in the context of temple worship? The logic just doesn't hold. That said. The prohibition is against h*m*sexual sex and not feelings and thoughts short of volitionally setting your heart to obtain or engage in things that are explicitly sinful.